Donald Trump

The Main Casualty of Canceled Trump Rally Is The *Idea* of Free Speech

The GOP frontrunner needs to change his tune and so do "#shutitdown" protesters.

|

So Donald Trump, the repellent and bullying frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, canceled a rally in Chicago yesterday after things got testy in a way he didn't care for. That's his prerogative, of course, though accounts vary as to whether the situation was as threatening as the Trump campaign claimed. Things had gotten ugly at a St. Louis event prior to Chicago, but then again, Trump himself has vaguely sanctioned violent reprisals against demonstrators at his events.

That sort of thing has progs such as Rachel Maddow insinuating that The Donald is working some sort of Black Hundreds program, creating a situation that can only be solved by…the guy who creates it:

"Violence at these events, which may start organically, is in effect spot lit and encouraged to the point where it becomes something that is legitimately out of control of anyone," she explained. "And then the spectacle of political violence is itself seen as something that is a problem that needs to be solved by this strongman character who incited the initial event in the first place."

Yeah, not so much. At the same time that at least some of Trump's followers are cretinous goons, there's an equally problematic counter-dynamic at work as well: The anti-free-speech mentality that's extremely pervasive throughout the American left that is summed by the slogan of a prominent Bernie Sanders supporter who helped organize the anti-Trump show in Chicago: "Everyone, get your tickets to this. We're all going in!!!! ?#?SHUTITDOWN?."

Shut it down! How cool is that? It's just like a college campus, where speakers aren't challenged on unpopular viewpoints but simply disinvited or shouted down to a degree that a thug's veto prevails.

Greg Lukianoff, head honcho at The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), has articulated that, for some years now, we haven't been debating about the conditions under which free speech might be allowed. Far more troubling, we are instead debating whether the idea of free speech can even be justified anymore. On both the left and the right (which has its own version of political correctness and has rarely been slow to try and stifle voices with which it disagrees), most people are pushing for what Lukianoff says is "freedom from speech."

Public debate, it seems, is no longer a means by which to search for truth, knowledge, and common ground, but only a venue for speech that expresses unthinking solidarity with whatever you already believe.

Trump and his campaign should categorically disown violence among the candidate's followers. And anti-Trumpers need to learn the difference between protesting and eradicating speech in the public square.

In a society that is built upon free speech and free assembly—and in which individuals and groups have never had such abilities to voice their viewpoints—appealing to the worst instincts in people can only end badly. And with even more people evacuating politics as a meaningful avenue for building anything other than greater and greater resentment.

NEXT: 4 Things to Know About Sri Srinivasan, Obama's Potential Nominee to Replace Scalia on the Supreme Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think it’s hilarious that a large group of Trump supporters fled in horror from a group comprised of safe space occupiers, effeminate college men in skinny jeans, vegans, and Bernie Sanders supporters.

    John and his ilk really are a bunch of pussies.

    1. This is retarded. SJWs have shown themselves to be quite thuggish. That’s why they have been labeled “crybullies”. Just recently, a libertarian had urine thrown on her for saying that there are only 2 genders.

      http://www.breitbart.com/tech/…..rotesters/

      Men’s rights activists constantly have bomb threats called I when they have public events in addition to the incredibly loud and abrasive feminists protesters who show up. Gamer Gaters have been swatted and publicly outed online. Some of which lost their jobs and had their family members harassed. I won’t even mention the family who lost their pizzeria after being asked a hypothetical question regarding catering a gay wedding and the entire Black Lives Matters movement. They might be whiny, but the SJW movement has shown themselves to be violent.

      1. You’re missing the point entirely. I don’t doubt any of those things that you mentioned above; however, they are incidental to my point. SJW’s a indeed thuggish cowards who hide behind their tablets or behind the government while destroying their political rivals. But when confronted eyeball to eyeball, they are fucking pussies…..and last night, Trump and his supporters ran away from a bunch of fucking pussies.

        1. And are labeled fascist thugs when they respond to them. They’re being put in a lose/lose situation.

          1. The “fascist thug” label has already been exploited ad naseum by the msm. Trump’s campaign can absorb another Godwinning. What they can’t absorb is video/audio evidence of cowardice…essentially a slipped mask.

            1. so, when a Trumpkin smacks a protester, they’re thugs; when they don’t attack, they’re cowards. What a game; the only way to win is to not play at all.

              1. No, according to Otis, the Internet tuff gai, refusing to play means that you’re a pussy.

              2. False dichotomy. They could hold rallies without attacking anybody. You know, like fully-formed human beings do all the time. Unfortunately, their leader is a moron, a bully and a coward, so I suppose you can’t actually expect that much from the followers.

            2. Nah this was a strategic win for the Trump-bots. My nephew is a Bernout who was all over some Trump crowd treating a protester mean or something last week. We had a long facebook talk where I was telling him that’s just how mobs and Democracy works, and he kept telling me that only Fascists do that and Bernie people never would, or something.

              He wont respond to me about this now.

          2. Sucker punching people being escorted out by the police or any of the other unprovoked violence that these people have visited upon protesters while yelling racial epithets are the actions of fascist thugs. I’m not endorsing the protesters, who are masturbatory at best and oppressive at worst, but the unprovoked violence against individuals is never justified.

        2. Hidden in the sea of snowflakes making jazz hands are a few people who do like to smash things. Think about the vandals at economic summits.

          1. Hidden in the sea of snowflakes making jazz hands

            I laughed like a pirate after reading that.

        3. They are pussies who’s “leaders” want them mouthing off so they will be attacked. They are pawns.

          1. Kent State was a victory for the left. So long as you were not one of the actual bullet catchers.

            But the leaders sure got what they wanted.

        4. I believe you have missed the point, Otis. The even was canceled exactly because the Trump supporters would have attacked the little SJW’s who would have screeched about brutality. We would have had a major street fight in Chicago and that would have done no one except the SJW thugs any good.

      2. More SJW bullies should be killed in self defense.

        1. Does it hurt to be that stupid?

    2. ROFL. Most of those people I saw in the crowd were Block Yomomma’s ghetto brownshirts.

      These are the scumbags playing the “knockout game” on defenseless old white guys for fun.

      1. I saw some black people in the pictures but was unable to come to the conclusion that they were “Block Yomomma’s ghetto brownshirts” from the pictures alone. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

        1. Whatever, Bloatus B Shitgood!!!!!!!!!!

          1. Crusty: 8/10, thus, 3/10.

            Try less-hard next time.

      2. Heard someone comment that they believe a lot of the yutes protesting are a result of those poor little babies who demand safe spaces, coddled as children and told that there will be someone who will always protect them when they hear something that causes them anquish. Same kind of college students we read about demanding suppression of any speech that they don’t agree with or may cause them mental harm. They are the recipients of participation trophies. But then again, isn’t that the basis of socialists? Suppressing free speech?

    3. Nick doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Free Speech and he is a lying turd claiming that he does.

      How about some support for Mark Steyn getting sued for several years now? Nope, Nick couldn’t do that because his record of being 100% hypocrite would fall.

      Seriously, Nick, go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw. You talk shit while someone else does the fighting alone.

    4. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
      this website,
      =============== http://www.PathCash30.com

    5. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
      this website,
      =============== http://www.PathCash30.com

    6. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
      this website,
      =============== http://www.PathCash30.com

  2. Fix the typo in your title, Gillespie.

    1. Yeah, everyone knows it’s cankled.

  3. So, to keep speech free everyone should shut up!

    1. not everyone, just everyone to the right of Mao.

  4. The ‘tough guy’ image Trump and his supporters seem to be going for falls apart pretty quickly. Challenge their notions or point out their assholery, and they show off victim complexes on par with modern university students. Talk big about punching so-and-so or throwing people out, but then their opponents decide to engage in their own threats/violence and it’s ‘RUN AWAY’.

    1. It so entertaining to read their rage-fueled comments on ABCNews as a result of their collective mask slipping last night. I’m enjoying every moment of this.

      1. It’s also interesting to not hear anything from any of the other candidates about someone’s free speech rights being violated by those who are engaging in free speech. All the others are piling on because they think this may be an opening for them, however, when it will happen to them they too will cry about their free speech rights. That’s what politicians do.

        1. It does seem rather silly of Trump supporters to be whining about his primary opponents’ failure to ‘properly’ rush to defend him from fascists.

          They are putting paid to their own vision of him as a strong successful leader. Yet cannot even see the dichotomy.

    2. Trump is exposing some of you for the mindless mouth breathing douches that you are. Of all the takes to have on this particular story, the absolute dumbest must be calling Trump and his supporters pussies for cancelling an event that threatened to become a riot.

      1. How dare I hold them to the standard they are claiming!

      2. Of all the takes to have on this particular story, the absolute dumbest must be calling Trump and his supporters pussies for cancelling an event that threatened to become a riot.

        Your comment implies that shitting yourself and running away from a protest is courageous. Are you going to validate that with something or just scurry off like your quintessential Trump supporter? Because that sounds like a pussy move to me.

        1. I would have favored capturing and executing all progtards present. But then, I favor that action whenever progtards are present anywhere at any time. Thinning their ranks can only be good.

          1. Nice try, agent provocateur.

      3. Otis, calling you a fucking idiot doesn’t have anything to do with Trump. It just means you are, in fact, a fucking idiot.

        Thousands of protesters decided to come out to counter this. There was already violence, there was already a chaotic environment. The counter protesters stated goal was to disrupt and shut down the event. So, after spending the last week bashing Trump and his supporters for being OK with violence, I’m sure, you now decide to bash him for taking an obvious step to prevent almost certain political violence. You then turn around and insult the intelligence of others without even a hint of self-awareness out your own mouth breathing hypocrisy.

        How dare I hold them to the standard they are claiming!

        What standard? Where did Trump supporters come out in favor of mob violence?

        1. Otis, calling you a fucking idiot doesn’t have anything to do with Trump. It just means you are, in fact, a fucking idiot.

          I’m an idiot simply because we disagree? Or is it because I think you and your fellow Trump fellators form a coterie of quivering manginas?

          You then turn around and insult the intelligence of others without even a hint of self-awareness out your own mouth breathing hypocrisy.

          Point out from my comments where I was hypocritical. Be sure to check your work too, mangina.

        2. The standard of ‘we’re all a bunch of tough guys that’ll show these PC leftists because we’re WINNERS GUYS, we’re going to be WINNING ALL THE TIME!’

          “Oh no, PC leftists engaging in protests and violence, as leftists are known to do! RUN AWAY!”

          If Trump and his ilk don’t want to mocked for it, perhaps they should end the pathetic, vapid grandstanding.

        3. You are right. Trump should have gotten on stage and ordered his supporters to attack Hitler style or simply inflamed the situation more. Then you could have been here today attacking him for that. The bottom line is you just want to attack Trump and are abandoning actual principles to do so.

          I’m an idiot simply because we disagree? Or is it because I think you and your fellow Trump fellators form a coterie of quivering manginas?

          You are an idiot because you are spewing moronic and hypocritical arguments without a hint of self-awareness.

          If you want to know how you are being hypocritical (I don’t have evidence of the pants shitting you were feigning the last few days over the violence of Trump supporters), then look no further than attacking Trump for using the same rhetoric that you are now employing. “Trump and his supporters engage in petty rhetoric, so I am going to do the same no matter how irrational it is in a specific context.” That’s the shorter and more honest version of your argument.

          So you can keep tilting at windmills and imaginary Trump supporters in your head. I simply don’t feel the need to attack Trump and those who support him in one case where they were in the right or engage in mealy mouthed rhetoric to signal to everyone else that I’m not of those bad people.

          1. You are right. Trump should have gotten on stage and ordered his supporters to attack Hitler style or simply inflamed the situation more. Then you could have been here today attacking him for that. The bottom line is you just want to attack Trump and are abandoning actual principles to do so.
            What a lazy false equivalency. Come on, dude…put some effort into your logical fallacies. This is bush league.

            You are an idiot because you are spewing moronic and hypocritical arguments without a hint of self-awareness.
            But for some reason, you’re just too tied up at the moment to provide any evidence of hypocrisy.

            then look no further than attacking Trump for using the same rhetoric that you are now employing.
            What did I say, specifically, that would validate this comment?

            I simply don’t feel the need to attack Trump
            People typically don’t FEELZ the need to attack a person whose cock is holstered in their mouth. Not typically.

            engage in mealy mouthed rhetoric to signal to everyone else that I’m not of those bad people.
            That’s the logical equivalent of firing an 82mm mortar at a straw man.

            (I don’t have evidence of the pants shitting you were feigning the last few days over the violence of Trump supporters)
            You don’t have evidence because you made it up….because you are a mendacious cunt.

            1. What a lazy false equivalency. Come on, dude…put some effort into your logical fallacies. This is bush league.

              No, sorry. Missed the false equivalency being drawn. Don’t even think I drew an equivalency of any kind.

              People typically don’t FEELZ the need to attack a person whose cock is holstered in their mouth. Not typically.

              So, now we get to the point where you can’t admit you’re wrong and you have no argument or leg to stand on, and just make vague assertions and insults because you think that’s tit for tat. See, I’ll insult you, but I’ll actually provide an argument with substance and explain myself. So why don’t you go run off back into your hole now because you aren’t dealing with some Trump supporter on Breitbart.

              That’s the logical equivalent of firing an 82mm mortar at a straw man.

              No, it’s my opinion of what people like you engage in. You asked how you are a hypocrite, and I gave you one explanation. The other is just assumed which is admitted. But the example I gave? That’s on full display. So you formed a long response quoting individual pieces just to falsely throw around forms of logical fallacies you don’t know how to use correctly.

          2. Then you could have been here today attacking him for that. The bottom line is you just want to attack Trump and are abandoning actual principles to do so.

            Yes Brochettaward, you can magically determine all my goals and objectives. I mean, just look at all this time I’ve spent on Reason attacking Trump, just because I want to.

            …Oh wait, I haven’t made a single comment about Trump on this site. In months. Clearly I’m just out to get my daily two-minutes of hate on Trump.

            Again, what I’m actually doing is mocking the extremely sad ‘big talk’ that Trump and his supporters engage in. I’m not saying responding with violence, I’m saying stop being such a pathetic pack of self-aggrandizing losers.

            1. Again, what I’m actually doing is mocking the extremely sad ‘big talk’ that Trump and his supporters engage in. I’m not saying responding with violence, I’m saying stop being such a pathetic pack of self-aggrandizing losers.

              And it’s still an irrational attack in this instance. Trump and his supporters are self aggrandizing losers who engage in this sort of rhetoric. That doesn’t justify you employing the same level of argument. If the portrait of the Trump hater above doesn’t fit you in this specific case, then it’s still widely applicable. Trump and his supporters in this instance alone were damned if they do and damned if they don’t because if they had gone ahead and there was violence, they get painted as the fascist bad guys. If they don’t, you can call them pussies for backing down.

              This story has little to do with Trump and his supporters. It’s a simple matter of how I value free speech in society, and in this case you have a group of leftists who wanted to do nothing but disrupt to silence those they disagree with. Who they were doing this to doesn’t matter.

          3. You nailed it. An all out riot with mass violence is exactly what the Obama/Hillary butt boys like Otis want. Then their whiny bitch lackeys in the JournoList can say “look what violent fascist thugs Trump’s supporters are.”

      4. I heard that those inside were planning on rushing the stage. Think the agents assigned to protect trump will have gently handled that? Then the headline would have been that he should have cancelled but in his arrogance didn’t. The intent of the gathering was not to protest but to cause trouble. A lot I believe were there because they though they were doing something good, but we never hear about those trouble makers who use this to promote violence unless it’s against the person we don’t like. Sound’s kind of hypocritical.

      5. I for one certainly do not fault him for cancelling the event. Especially since it was Chicago PD who were ostensibly charged with maintaining order.

        As if they were not part of the problem.

        But Trump’s entire response has been to leverage this against his (at least in name) own party.

        That may pay off in the short run. But in the long run if he cannot deal with the fascists then he will prove to be a failure.

    3. “He and his kind are violent, murderous fascists. But even worse, they are cowards about it.”

      Look, Bernie crowd and assholes who were screaming last night are the kind that start violent, bloody revolutions. Trump crowd are the kind that fights, kills and dies in them, only to be fucked by the first kind afterwards. Is them not going full Rohm really something to denigrate them for?

      I try to stay out of US politics, but this kind of shit bothers me.

      1. Neither side is good here. Unfortunately this further helps Trump.

      2. I’m not on the ‘Trump is a fascist’ train here. I think arguing about that is a massive waste of time. We don’t need to flip our shit over a supposed Nazi salute or oath taking like it’s the bloody second Beer Hall Putsch, we need to talk about how his actual policy platform is filled with nonsense. We do not need to start throwing around the term ‘fascist’ to highlight the fact that Trump is unfit for office, he does that himself.

        What I’m mocking is the pathetic attempts at being ‘Alpha’ that infests the entire Trump campaign. Trump supporters are continuously presenting him as some kind of last great hope against the politically correct hordes to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. But then those PC hordes show up and the general call to retreat is sounded.

        Here’s the thing, I actively expect leftists to devolve into violence when they don’t get their way or feel like they’re losing power. That’s the nature of their philosophy. If Trump’s not willing to face that or allow violent protesters to influence his events, guess what, he’s not the wonderful Mahdi come to beat the The Great PC Satan his followers make him out to be.

        Throw Trump into a legal, voluntary duel and he’d piss himself, because he’s all talk, and I’m perfectly happy pointing out what a pathetic chest thumper he is.

        1. That won’t be the narrative. This helped Trump.

          1. No doubt, as it would help any campaign that was responded to violently. My point is more the dissonance between the tough guy personas of Trump and his ilk, and their actual actions. Cancelling due to the protest itself is not actually a bad move, but combine that with the hissy fits and constant victimization Trump supporters engage in when simply challenged verbally highlights them as a pack of thin-skinned self-aggrandizing fools.

            1. Perfect reflection of the candidate. And that appears to be his appeal. “He’s just like me! He gets it!”

            2. Sometime the toughest and hardest thing to do in response to an event is to do nothing and let things happen. Libertarians in general and people on this board in particular have promoted doing nothing in response to economic, political, and foreign events.

              Being an alpha does not mean engaging in violence. Standing up for yourself does not mean engaging in violence.

              Most of the time if a group just stood their ground (mostly) non-violently to an attack the vast majority of participants on this board would applaud the group that did (almost) nothing. Somehow Trump and his supporters are different. It seems okay to attack them for doing something and for doing nothing at the same time. I guess they are not allowed to think for themselves and come up with their own answers.

              I just find it surprising how many people seem to be rooting toward mass battles in the street.

              1. I guess they are not allowed to think for themselves and come up with their own answers.

                Actually, they have thought for themselves, and they’ve decided to construct ‘tough guy’ personas to cover up their own insecurities and lack of character. They deserved to be mocked for such an obvious psychological crutch.

                I’m not calling for violence in the streets, I’m pointing out what utterly pathetic scum Trump and his supporters are by the way they act.

                1. And that in no way excuses leftist violence, of course, but as I mentioned above, I expect that from leftists. Scum attacking other scum does not make that other scum suddenly less worse.

                2. Have you ever read long rants about a group of people and at the end you get a one line sentence so small if you blink you might miss it saying the other side is not good either. And you wonder why if the other side is not good either why was the article so one sided? That maybe the author doesn’t really think the sides are even and just included the one line to cover their ass about being unfair.

                  I get the impression that it doesn’t matter who does what to whom, you are going to blame Trump and his supporters. 10 Trump supporters beat up a Sanders supporter, its Trump’s fault. 10 Sander’s supporters beat up a Trump supporter, its Trump’s fault.

                  This was a planned and coordinated attack on the free speech of a group of people (the protesters weren’t just walking outside chanting, they were inside and they had no intention of letting Trump speak without interruption) and all you can talk about self-perceived “fake” tough guys. One of the most important rights is under attack and you say nothing about it.

                  Some people say Trump is getting support from people who have been blamed and attacked for everything going wrong no matter what the real cause is. So they are used to it and they are finally standing up for themselves. So the next time you wonder why Trump is getting so much support, look in the mirror.

    4. Sorry i don’t really get this view-point. Did you want them to respond with violence? Also this country does still have laws. I am not sure what you are looking for them to do here.

      I am glad nothing happened that wasn’t too bad.

      1. If Trump supporters responded with violence they would be screaming about how violent Trump supporters are. But because they shut down the event because the protesters got out of hand, they’re pussies. Trump bashing has become unbearable.

      2. I’m not so sure America is still a nation of laws. I think we’re seeing firsthand how the people who have switched to acting as if it is no longer a nation of laws are taking full advantage of all the people who still act as if it is a nation of laws.

    5. Challenge their notions or point out their assholery, and they show off victim complexes

      Seems to have worked well for cops, prosecutors, judges, bureaucrats, and politicians for ages.

  5. This couldn’t have played out any better for Trump. He openly encourages his supporters to beat up protesters, so any protest at a Trump rally automatically becomes a potential riot. That in turn gives him cover to run away when faced with a non-adoring crowd and blame the other side for putting themselves in a position where his goons might do the things he’s told them to do (and lie about acting on advice from the police). That becomes a “Both sides have violent elements” narrative and puts responsibility on protests not to get too big (for a completely undefined value of “too big”) or they’ll be considered to be inciting violence merely by existing. Delightful.

  6. It is? I’m not buying it. This excerpt was back when I guess protesting WAS free speech at Reason.

    “…but I don’t have to understand it to understand that these protests, the counter-protests, the indignation on Twitter, and even the agitation to ban hate speech, are all what makes free speech, and freedom in America so awesome. Ritzheimer admits his protest, which he hopes remains peaceful, is “stupid.” So is stomping on the American flag, he says, but it doesn’t hurt anyone either. And if you can’t be stupid while not hurting anyone violating the rights of others*, how free are you? “

    1. A counter protest doesn’t try to silence the other side. It counters the point. It shows support for the other side. Now that the obvious has been pointed out, go crawl back into your hole and die.

      1. Nite Ed includes protests along with counter protests as emblematic of free speech in America.

        It should be obvious to anyone who can read what his point was. Try again.

        1. Um shutting them down from speaking and assembling despite your feelings for trump and his supporters is a violation of the 1st amendment.

          I don’t like bern but i would be aggravated if people like BLM did shut him down and created a high tension situation such that one can’t speak.

          1. BLM did exactly that to Hillary, O’Malley, and Bernie quite a while ago–a foreshadowing of ever-worsening silencing behavior.

            1. OH yes. Which is probably why Bernie will not disavow them now. He is trying to hold the tiger by it’s tail.

              Much the same as Trump is trying to manage another radical fringe.

              Things really are spinning in an ever widening gyre.

        2. Did Ed justify counter protests with the state goal of silencing opposition, you mendacious cunt? No? Then you have no point.

          1. As usual, libertarians think they can define which protest is righteous, and which isn’t.

            I’ll stay with Ed on this one. Protest is protest. And it’s been part of American life forever. Stop whining.

            1. Jackand Ace|3.12.16 @ 1:46PM|#
              “As usual, libertarians think they can define which protest is righteous, and which isn’t.

              As usual, Jack’s entirely too stupid to understand the point.

        3. Jackand Ace|3.12.16 @ 1:08PM|#
          “Try again.”

          OK, you stupid shit, do you carry strawmen around all day so you can beat on them in front of any crowd you find?

        4. No, he destroyed you. It’s over.

        5. No, he destroyed you. It’s over.

          1. Just to be fair, if he destroyed anyone, he destroyed Ed, who quite clearly said protest itself is free speech, and he never qualified that in any way.

            But no, Ed still triumphs, as he at least isn’t a libertarian who is selective when it comes to protest.

    2. You stupid shit, do you carry strawmen around all day so you can beat on them in front of any crowd you find?

  7. Trump and his lemmings have brought this on themselves.i wish people would be just as enraged about Hillary and Sanders,.They are just as much a threat to freedom.Their just not arrogant enough to encourage their supporters and aides to beat people .Oh,and fuck off trump.He talks tough but I doubt he’s ever benn in a fight,he needs people to fight for him,pansy ass.

    1. That may be it a bit but i am thinking mainly it is the hateful leftists that have no self esteem who protest to boost their own ego. Your typical SJW if you will . They aren’t really doing it as part of some noble cause

      1. I agree,they are most likely Hillary or Bernie lemmings.Just as dangerous to freedom.That does not change the fact that Trump is a anti trade,zero sum,anti free speech ,crony pussy.He’s a rich bully that can’t fight his own battles.He uses his money to hide behind others .And has a punchable face.

        1. Oh for sure he is. the candidates this year are terrible.

    2. They encourage violence; they just are more subtle.

  8. Nick’s trying to be even-handed here, but blaming Trump or his supporters for this is a huge stretch. The distinction is clear: yes, a few Trump protestors got manhandled, and Trump approved of that, but it was hardly what I would call organized violence. This, though, was organized violence from the left, and done in the classic way. Claim you are going to “peacefully protest,” but invite the most extreme and violent leftist elements and get everyone whipped up. Then when the violence inevitably happens, the apologists can claim it wasn’t the plan, while the violent types can relish their violence. And of course, this is just the beginning. The closer it gets to the election, the more violent the left will become.

    When there are gangs of people wearing Trump hats barging into Hillary or Bernie events and starting fights, let me know. Then they’ll be some equivalence.

    As for them being “pussies”: get your fucking story straight. Either Trump and his supporters are OMG DANGEROUS FASCISTS, or they’re pussies. It can’t be both.

    Bottom line: every time this happens, Trump’s vote goes up.

    1. Trump encourages violence in his staff and supporters.He is a zero sum,anti freedom crony.

      1. Hear hear. But Nick’s typical equivocation (the right TOTALLY does it too) is tiresome.

  9. “There’s an equally problematic counter-dynamic at work as well: The anti-free-speech mentality that’s extremely pervasive throughout the American left that is summed by the slogan of a prominent Bernie Sanders supporter who helped organize the anti-Trump show in Chicago: “Everyone, get your tickets to this. We’re all going in!!!! ?#?SHUTITDOWN?.”

    1. I don’t see organic fistfights as a reaction to this as unusual or necessarily awful. Anybody that saw Gangs of New York recognizes this stuff. What should people do to counter union thuggery? Back in the ’60s, anarchist groups like Up Against the Wall Motherfuckers would instigate violence against communist thugs trying to take over organic street protests. There are black blocs that show up to protests both to instigate violence by the police against protesters and to counter it. When I was a kid, there were Nazi skinheads who showed exploded all over our scene–and the way to counteract that wasn’t through reasoned discourse.

      Violence can be recreational. I used to play hockey. Sometimes fights break out at the professional level. I used to spar with a friend of mine who was a boxer. You’ve all seen Ronda Rousey fight, right? When I was a kid, learning to defend yourself was part of growing up. Getting punched or beaten up wasn’t the worst thing that could happen to you–as long as nobody saw you cry. Getting pushed around by bullies was the worst thing that could happen. I suppose that’s the way I see this. People show up to an event to shut it down–to bully others, really–and when somebody loses their temper, fights back, and socks them for it, we’re supposed to feel sorry for the provocateurs?

    2. Violence by itself isn’t always a terrible thing. I’d rather be the kind of person who would sock you in the mouth for saying something rude to my girlfriend than the kind of person who would stand there and do nothing and just let you walk all over her, me, and everybody else. If I cared about seeing Donald Trump and hearing what he had to say, I’m not sure sitting on my fists would be the proper response to you showing up to shut the rally down either. I’m not saying that people guilty of battery shouldn’t be prosecuted, even. But sometimes people should be proud of hauling off and socking somebody, and it’s the people who stand by and do nothing that should be ashamed.

      1. I’d rather be the kind of person who would sock you in the mouth for saying something rude to my girlfriend than the kind of person who would stand there and do nothing and just let you walk all over her, me, and everybody else.

        “Saying something rude” in itself is not a justification for physical violence.

        1. You mean it isn’t a legal justification for violence?

          Well, that depends on the jury, doesn’t it?

          Have you heard the term “fighting words”?

          Understand the principle of the assumption of risk?

          I am a private citizen. I am not the government.

          Meanwhile, Evel Knievel beat the shit out of his former publicist with a baseball bat for slandering him as a wife beater, a child abuser, and a drug addict in a tell-all book. At his preliminary hearing, he plead guilty. Just because what he did was illegal doesn’t mean it was wrong. Just because it was violent doesn’t mean it was necessarily wrong either.

          1. I think it is wrong to meet words, even aggressive or slanderous ones, with violence. It is quite clearly escalation. I don’t expect people to live by the NAP at all times, but this is an emotionally driven argument that when writ large causes massive issues.

          2. You mean it isn’t a legal justification for violence?

            I also mean it’s not morally justified, especially under the NAP.

            Have you heard the term “fighting words”?

            That would be a credible threat. A mere insult wouldn’t count.

            I am a private citizen. I am not the government.

            I don’t differentiate between individuals in the government and individuals outside it to make a moral judgement.

            Just because what he did was illegal doesn’t mean it was wrong. Just because it was violent doesn’t mean it was necessarily wrong either.

            It was both wrong and illegal.

            1. I know a lot of my fellow libertarians are all about NAP.

              Suffice it to say, I believe there is a libertarian principle more fundamental than NAP, and it has to do with agency. I really don’t want to rehash that argument here; suffice it to say, our rights are choices, and we should be free to make choices for ourselves. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our right to make choices for ourselves.

              But I am not the government.

              I may consider certain things worth fighting for. Maybe the government should protect the rights of others from me. Maybe I forfeit my rights to something for some period of time by fighting for what I believe in. But that doesn’t necessarily mean what I’m doing is wrong. Maybe starting a fist fight with a gang of Nazi skinheads should be illegal–but does that mean doing so is morally wrong?

              I don’t think so.

              If and when the government perfectly abided by the NAP, there would still be important distinctions between what is illegal and what is wrong. In certain situations, I still might be compelled by conscience and self-esteem to clock somebody every once in a while–even if I should be tried and convicted for it.

              Think basketball. Think “fouls to give”. If there’s a rule against it, it’s part of the game.

              1. The NAP is the one limit we accept to agency. You can do whatever you want as long as you do not initiate the use of force. So yes agency is the primary value, but no it cannot trump NAP as defining the acceptable limits to agency is what the NAP does.

                1. Respect for agency is its own limit.

                  Respect for other people’s agency is already inherent within the idea that we should all be free to make choices for ourselves.

                  Trying to marry morality and legality will always get you in trouble.

                  You can see it in examples of extreme questions from history. Should people be allowed to sell themselves into slavery? Should democracies be allowed to vote themselves out of existence?

                  You can also see it in everyday questions like whether it’s morally alright for oppressed people to break the law. Even in a perfect NAP government, individuals will still violate each other’s rights. And people will still be able to react with violence. Some of those reactions will be proportionate and some will be disproportionate. Some people will differ about whether the violation that occurred was really a violation of somebody’s rights.

                  But we still won’t be able to categorically dismiss all violent altercations as immoral or illegal–not because of the NAP or any other principle.

                  1. But we still won’t be able to categorically dismiss all violent altercations as immoral or illegal–not because of the NAP or any other principle.

                    Violent responses to violence are neither moral nor should they be illegal. Initiating the use of force is immoral and should be illegal. An insult is neither a legal or moral justification.

                    I will agree that in some cases someone can initiate the use of force without making contact. Examples would be if it the verbal abuse is prolonged significantly past your attempt to leave the situation, e.g. someone follows you down the street continually yelling abuse, or abuse without contact rises to the level of an assault (as distinct from a battery), someone crowds into your face yelling or gesticulating such that you reasonably believe they are attacking you,

                    Force does not only mean striking someone. Rushing the stage and seizing a microphone is force. At some point drowning out a speaker probably rises to the level of force, although that seems a pretty ticklish case, because it directly prevents speaker and audience from exercising their rights.

                    A single insult can never, in my opinion, justify a forcible response.

                    1. 2nd paragraph 1st sentence should be immoral not moral

                    2. Also

                      Respect for other people’s agency is already inherent within the idea that we should all be free to make choices for ourselves. this is just restating the NAP. Refraining from initiating force is respecting other people’s agency.

                    3. The NAP protects agency. It is not agency itself. A thing that protects something else cannot be more fundamental than the thing it protects.

                      In making choices for ourselves, we can even choose to commit crimes. That is agency.

                      The NAP seems to hold that all of those crimes are inherently unethical. That’s where you lose me.

                      Incidentally, teaching people not to stand up for themselves can be woefully unethical.

                    4. I don’t see initiating the use of force as standing up for yourself. Standing up for yourself is responding to an attack. I think you are seeing an insult to your girlfriend as an attack when you say that it merits a punch. I understand the emotional response; I even sympathize with it, but the fact that someone angers you cannot be a basis for making your initiation of force moral. Anger prompts violence; morality is us restraining that animal response.

                    5. Do you get what I’m saying about the difference between our ethical responsibilities and our legal responsibilities?

                      We all have a legal obligation to respect each others’ rights, and the legitimate purpose of government is protect our rights through law.

                      I am not the government, though, and neither are my ethics. The harmony of law and my ethics is often coincidental.

                      Maybe elective abortion should be perfectly legal and is also completely unethical. Maybe it should be illegal to smack somebody and perfectly ethical to do so.

                      Is any of this getting through?

                      You’re NAP prism isn’t valid becasue you can rationalize everything you see through it. If it were valid, it would be valid because it accurately describes the world around us.

                      Meanwhile, I am not bound by the ethics of government. The government is bound by the ethics of government. My own ethics are what they are–independent of government. My rights do not depend on the government, and neither do my ethics. Not even if the government were perfectly in harmony with NAP.

                      Illusions can be internally consistent.

                      I hope this is getting through.

                    6. Ken, you’re the only one bringing up legality issues. They have nothing to do with this argument. The NAP isn’t just for governments to follow. It is a philosophy for the actions of individuals, as all actions are decided upon and carried out by individuals. It also isn’t an attempt to explain how the world is. It is a principle for people to follow who want to live morally and in a manner consistent with respecting the rights of others. Physically attacking someone who hasn’t attacked you isn’t consistent with the NAP and it isn’t a moral action for an individual. The Trump campaign has the right to remove protesters, or anyone, from their events as they have temporary right of exclusion to the property, just like the band in your other comment. But no one, either Trump supporter, drummer, or whomever, has the right or, responsibility or moral standing to sucker punch or otherwise attack a nonviolent person who is doing something they don’t like. Do you understand yet?

                    7. “The NAP isn’t just for governments to follow. It is a philosophy for the actions of individuals”

                      That’s where the argument falls apart.

                      The purposes of government and the purposes of individuals are not the same. If the law were perfectly in harmony with the NAP in every way, in certain circumstances, breaking the law would still be ethical.

                      Your explanation for the NAP fails to account for the differences between legal obligations and moral obligations–and in the real world, those are two different things.

                      Even when shooting people is legal (according to the NAP), I’ve known people who wouldn’t carry a weapon in Vietnam becasue they thought killing people, even in self-defense, was unethical. And who knows, maybe they’re right!

                      I can see moral arguments for shooting slave owners–even if people in the future willingly sold themselves into slavery. I can see moral arguments for rebelling against a dictatorial government–even if it was riding a wave of wild popularity and was democratically elected. Can’t you?

                    8. As an individual, I may not be legally obligated to tolerate other people’s speech on my property, but maybe I’m morally obligated to do so. The government, on the other hand, may be legally obligated to do immoral things–like protect Nazis as they march past the homes of Jews in Skokie, Ill. who survived the holocaust. Just because that’s the right thing to do legally doesn’t mean it’s ethical.

                      I understand the NAP is supposed to circumscribe the behavior of both individuals and governments. It fails at that.

                      There is a more fundamental rule, and it has to do with agency. All moral systems contend with agency in some way. Maybe the NAP is better than other systems. But who says there has to be a rule of thumb?

                    9. Why do you keep bringing up government and laws? Those things are not at issue here and have no bearing on the debate. We all know that morality and laws are two wholly separate things. No one here has conflated the two categories. In libertarian theory, moral law stems from, or at least does not violate, the NAP, but again it’s about personal morality, not laws, and individuals, not governments. The NAP is also not itself a law. As such, legal theory is not involved in this discussion whatsoever and does not invalidate anyone’s arguments or prove any of your points. This entire discussion has been about whether it’s right or wrong to initiate violence. I don’t think your going to find a libertarian who thinks that the rightness or wrongness of an action rests upon its legal status.

                    10. Now that that is hopefully cleared up, the NAP addresses agency, at least implicitly, depending on your exact preferred wording. It holds that people own themselves and are therefore responsible for their own actions. I fail to see how having agency somehow gives you cover to attack another person because you disagree with their words. To me it just further invalidates such aggression. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on this idea?

                      Also, while related, ethics and morals are not the same thing and the words cannot be used interchangeably. But I will leave that as an individual exercise.

                    11. “Why do you keep bringing up government and laws? Those things are not at issue here and have no bearing on the debate. We all know that morality and laws are two wholly separate things.”

                      The reason I keep bringing it up is because the NAP doesn’t account for them being two different things.

                      I’ve given numerous examples. I gave an example of individuals’ ethics being less aggressive than NAP prescribes and another example of it being ethical for individuals to be more aggressive than NAP. I gave an example of the government being compelled to behave unethically because of NAP and another example of people being ethically compelled to act because the government correctly adhered to NAP.

                      Amid all of those real world contradictions, we might start questioning the usefulness of the NAP itself as a guide. To the extent that the NAP is compelling, it’s because of its internal consistency and its simplicity. Creationism is also internally consistent and simple–the problems come when you start comparing creationism to what we see in the world around us. I look at the NAP in the real world, and I see contradictions.

                      If you’re telling me I can’t sock somebody because of an ethical principle that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny in the real world, then, yeah, I might bring those inconsistencies up. If it can sometimes be ethical for an individual to violate someone’s rights, then how can it not be sometimes ethical to violate NAP?

                    12. Of course morality and law are distinct. I have not been talking about punishment here, just moral justification. To briefly address legalities, if someone is rude to your girlfriend and you sock them, their level of rudeness might well mitigate your punishment. It even makes your act less morally blameworthy. What it does not do is justify your act.

                      Your argument here has been basically that rudeness toward someone you love and protect justifies initiating violence. The problem with that as a principle is that if it is generally applied then violence becomes an acceptable answer to speech. For you the shibboleth is your girlfriend. To someone else, many someones apparently, it is Obama, or Trump, or Hillary, or Jesus, or Mohammed, or Marx. Do you see the implications? Do you see the nuance I am trying to convey? Mitigation possibly, justification not.

          3. Damn your a fucking idiot,and you keep proving it.

            1. your a fucking idiot

              /facepalm

            2. Oh, I’m so heartbroken!

          4. “Fighting words” is a very difficult standard to meet, and it’s most certainly higher than “saying something rude to my girlfriend.”

            1. Notice I gave two cases there.

              In case one, if someone on the jury thinks you were asking for it, then it isn’t really against the law. They’re effectively equating that with fighting words and the assumption of risk.

              In case two, even if what you did was illegal, that doesn’t necessarily mean it was morally wrong.

              Let me ask you guys this: Do you believe the government should have a monopoly on violence?

              If you believe that we should be able to defend ourselves with deadly force when our lives are threatened, do you believe we should be able to punch people for lesser threats?

              For me, the justifications are highly situational. It requires a jury’s judgement, and the morality question is even more complicated. I’m certainly not about to dismiss every violent altercation as both illegal and immoral simply because they’re violent.

              1. If you believe that we should be able to defend ourselves with deadly force when our lives are threatened, do you believe we should be able to punch people for lesser threats?

                Yes. Rights, including free speech, come with responsibilities. There is corresponding right to be heard, to be agreed with, or to be free of consequences.

              2. “If you believe that we should be able to defend ourselves with deadly force when our lives are threatened, do you believe we should be able to punch people for lesser threats?”

                If someone’s lunging at you, or throwing things at you, or grabbing your S.O., I would say responding physically is justifiable. If someone is just hurling insults, assaulting them for that would be out of line. This is one of those times when the best defense against offensive speech is more speech.

      2. But sometimes people should be proud of hauling off and socking somebody

        No. Not really. You should be ashamed that you allowed someone else to control your actions like that.

        1. Oh, I could have chosen to do nothing. That’s what most people do.

          I chose not to do nothing. He didn’t control my actions. I chose them myself.

          Hopefully he learned there are consequences to his own actions. Hopefully he learned to control himself.

          1. Oh, I could have chosen to do nothing.

            But you didn’t. You allowed the other person to control your emotions, which took control of your actions. Unless you’d like to argue that you dispassionately physically attacked someone because it was what good people do.

            I chose not to do nothing. He didn’t control my actions. I chose them myself.

            Your emotions, which were set off by your feeling insulted, controlled your actions.

            Hopefully he learned there are consequences to his own actions. Hopefully he learned to control himself.

            He learned to control you. Any time he wants to set you off into a fighting rage again, he knows just what to say. Next time that happens you might not be in a position to win. You might learn your own lesson.

            1. Unless you’d like to argue that you dispassionately physically attacked someone because it was what good people do.

              Certainly possibly the case. And the rest of your post fails from that point

            2. Disagree. Bullying or abuse or whatever else you want to call it relies on the belief that the target will do nothing. And doing nothing accomplishes nothing beyond inviting more of the same. Sorry but there comes a point where enough is enough, and the only thing a bully or an asshole understands is being smacked in the mouth. Best response? In a sane world, no. But the ability to say things does not absolve you from potential consequences, it does not require others agree with you, it doesn’t even come with the right to be heard.

              1. And doing nothing accomplishes nothing beyond inviting more of the same.

                Even if that is true, they are mere words, and the “bully” has every right to utter them. There is no right to physically assault others for their words.

                Best response?

                It’s not the best response in any world. Unless you are defending yourself or others from a physical threat, initiating violence is wrong. You are the aggressor if you initiate force.

                it does not require others agree with you

                Agreed. You are free to disagree with others.

                it doesn’t even come with the right to be heard.

                Agreed.

                But the ability to say things does not absolve you from potential consequences

                I guess by “potential consequences”, you are referring to barbarians who will initiate violence against you because they don’t like what you say? If so, they don’t have any right whatsoever to do that. The ability to be such a barbarian does not absolve you from the potential consequences, which might include the other person rightfully defending themselves, or even legal trouble.

                Other types of consequences, such as people not associating with you, are fine. But as soon as you initiate force, you have failed.

      3. I’d rather be the kind of person who would sock you in the mouth for saying something rude to my girlfriend than the kind of person who would stand there and do nothing and just let you walk all over her, me, and everybody else.

        One could always respond with: “Well, you know0…that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”0

        1. Even a “go fuck your mother, asshole” wouldn’t be out of line.

  10. You mammals have topped our expectations of entertainment. For this reason Your Future Reptilian Overlords have delayed the invasion*

    *I’m totally full of shit, our permit is still waiting on the Intergalactic Commision on Domination

    1. waiting on the Intergalactic Commision on on Domination

      I respect that you follow the rules

    2. How bribable are AIs?

    3. Will your kind please take Hillary,Trump and Sanders as slaves and teach them the meaning of real power?

    4. Help me Mr Lizard, you’re my only hope.

    1. I don’t think that’s the same woman.

      1. Further research indicates that you may be correct.

    2. Oh, but I also think the Nazi salute woman is a plant.

  11. Meanwhile, in Sweden, the benefits of immigration continue to flower. So yeah, Hillary’s pro-Muslim immigration and refugee position is going to guarantee her the presidency. Just like her anti-gun position just won her Michigan.

    1. But Sweden is a liberal country.

      How can they engage in rape victim blaming?

      1. Apparently on the Victim Scale?, Muslim trumps female.

    2. See also: Sweden Stunned At “Unreal” Surge In Refugee Sex Attacks for a quick wrapup of examples.

      Now, according to the college campus SJWs, only 5% of rapes are ever reported. So these 9 events must mean that 180 rapes actually happened, but only these few were reported to the police. Or is that one of those statistics that only applies when it is convenient to the progressive?

      1. Do you even progressive stack, bro?

        5% of rapes are reported BUT 120% of rapes reported by white people against PoC are false. Thus, nothing to see.

        Most likely explanation? If these “assaulters” are really immigrants, and not local scions of the Patriarchy, they must be some kind of fascist Poles, taking revenge for The Deluge.

        1. I am shame. I fail to progress.

      2. Oh, you are right, this is a great time to bring up that figure.

        The feminists are really in a bind here. They want to be leftists and support anything that hurts traditional, patriarchal, white, Christian civilization, so importing brown Muslims sounds great to them. The fact that they are supporting the importation of men from incredibly patriarchal, misogynist, and rape-y cultures hasn’t fully penetrated the consciousness of most of them.

  12. So Dropkick Murphys are covering AC/DC’s TNT, when a Nazi coopts his opportunity to be on stage with other fans to star sieg heiling.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWFjE7OLMbQ

    What’s the best way to handle a situation like that?

    One of the band members knocked the Nazi on his ass and beat his freakin’ face in. Why should they pleasantly abide somebody there to ruin their show?

    If you don’t want your face beaten in for doing Nazi salutes on stage with Dropkick Murphys, there’s an easy way to avoid that.

    No, I don’t think that makes the band a bunch of Nazis.

    1. Ken your a fucking idiot,he ruined my show I must pummel him.Trump has shown you for want you are.

      1. your a fucking idiot

        Aaaand double /facepalm

      2. What’s that, a libertarian who doesn’t believe the government has a monopoly on violence?

        A libertarian who thinks sometimes morality is more important than the law–even if the law should be upheld?

    2. I’m reading these comments and having a hard time believing that some people can’t reconcile their philosophical beliefs with reality. The NAP is a noble idea but it runs counter to my ideas of personal responsibility in regards to what amount of crap I’m expected to put up with in specific circumstances. This isn’t a slippery slope issue concerning the idea of protected speech and who gets to decide what is proper and acceptable discourse. As thinking, mature adults we should be able to detect the nuances of interpersonal behavior and have a reasonable idea of what is or isn’t appropriate.

      You simply cannot say whatever you want whenever you want and not expect consequences when it’s clearly out of line. Conversely you can’t expect to be able to punch everyone who says things that you don’t like. Sometimes a person deserves to get his or her ass kicked and, if you do end up kicking someone’s ass, then you largely deserve whatever consequences come from that decision.

      I know that some here will call me stoopid or un-libertarian-hopefully your insults willI be more creative. Just keep in mind that I didn’t make the rules, but there they are nonetheless.

  13. I don’t think the fear is unfounded. Did you see the video from today in Dayton where protesters grabbed at Trump’s legs?

    http://www.whio.com/news/news/…..ven/nqjjg/

    If I were Trump I don’t know how safe I’d feel under the protection of the organization that not long ago allowed a guy with a knife to jump the White House fence and enter the East Room unimpeded.

    1. Hey,he’s a tough guy,he’ll punch them in the face.He’s tough,he always wins.He’s a bully that need people to fight his battles.

  14. Wow – Nick thinks that ‘free speech’ means the right not to be protested by others.

    Actually this public dissent is a very positive development. It will be the Nazis vs the Commies. They will cancel each other out and then the Libertarian Renaissance will finally happen.

    1. History is lacking in examples of liberty movements arising when opposed totalitarian movements ‘cancel each other out’

      1. Famous last words.

    2. The much more likely outcome is that the minority liberty movement ends up in front of the firing squad of whatever majority totalitarian ideology survives.

      1. Ye of little faith.

        1. I prefer pragmatic cynicism to suicidal optimism.

  15. The right of protest is the “right of the people peaceably to assemble”. That right is absolute. 100,000 chanting, marching, singing, speaking, saluting is fine and no matter their message I support them whenever they choose to assemble.

    When they, or a group of them start burning things, throwing things, attacking people, or smashing things they become rioters. Rioting is not peaceable assembly despite 50 plus years of the left calling riots protests. Riots should be dispersed, by force if necessary, as by definition rioters have initiated the use of force. I don’t care what made them angry; if you initiate the use of force force is justified against you. Mob violence is too dangerous both physically and in its chilling effect on speech to be tolerated.

    1. Yes but peaceful protest is actually more effective than mob violence – as MLK and Ghandi proved. The irony here is that it’s usually the Trump supporters who swing first. And then say, “They started it.” Typical bullying tactic, which Nick tried and failed to condone.

      1. Yes but peaceful protest is actually more effective than mob violence

        I made no claim about effectiveness, and certainly in no way was praising mob violence so I am not sure why this comment is phrased as a counter or exception to mine? Yes and would be more fitting here.

      2. when you show up with the intent of “shut it down,” you have given up the moral high ground. At that point, it’s simply a matter of when the provocation is going to get the result that you, the shut it down person, wants.

        1. Exactly. It’s not “peaceful protest” or “free speech” to shut down someone else’s free speech with a heckler’s veto.

  16. Have we all forgotten that blacklivesmatter shut down a Bernie rally in Seattle?

        1. I think its worth watching just to note the M.O. and the rhetoric

  17. Donald Trump, the repellent and bullying frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination…

    Has Nick ever described Bernie, the crazed socialist, or Hillary, the willing felon as repellent?

    1. Why would he? He dislikes them on intellectual, not visceral level. Much like Soave calls Lauren Southern (she of getting urine dumped on head for BadSpeak) an “anti-feminist activist” but Randy Harper (whose automated twitter blacklist program caught Cathy Young and ENB) “anti-harassment activist”. Lefties are reasonable and respectable, no matter what they do.

    2. Read just about any article that Nick has written about Trump. He starts them all off with a few brow beating insults in the first two sentences. I feel embarrassed for Nick “I believe in the welfare state” Gillespie.

  18. Trump!

    For the LULZ

    1. +1 Best election season ever. If Hilary gets indicted, I’m going to lose my shit.

      1. For what it’s worth, the tabloids are saying that the FBI has the goods on her and is closing in. I’ll bet there are copies of Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer being read at FBI headquarters. Also, that Trump has info on her lesbian lovers.

        It’s like an election designed by 4chan.

    1. The guy in the bedsheet is risking his life. Pull that shit in the wrong place and he might catch a bullet or six.

      1. You say that now, from the safety of your computer, troompaloompa.

    2. Doing their bit for interfaith relations, I see….

    1. Obviously justified since Trump says bad words.

      1. Trump and his sub-moron racist mouthbreathers are responsible for the people’s reactions that they brought on themselves in a climate of hate and violent rhetoric.

  19. So Donald Trump, the repellent and bullying frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination

    Laying it on a little thick

    1. That’s his signaling to the left, kind of a head nod to keep him popular at cocktail parties.

      It’s like how if you stand up for any Republicans in any way, you’re supposed to start out by saying, “Now, I hate Republicans, buuuutttt…”

    2. But Bernie Sanders is just a cute old man with a few crazy ideas.

  20. “You might want to look up the First Amendment. It stops the government from muzzling you. But when I muzzle you, it’s not a free speech issue because I’m not the government. Duhhh!!”

    -Progs everywhere

    1. Actually, I’ve heard this a ton on the Facebookz recently. Seems legit.

    2. I ask them that since the government didn’t do the Hollywood blacklists, then those must have been OK, correct? No prog yet has squared that circle.

  21. I’m surprised I haven’t seen more “freedom of speech is protection from government shutting you up, not protection from other people shutting you up”. And extrapolating anything from “mob violence” in Chicago is a little iffy given that this is how Chicago works. Sure, they call them “community organizers” rather than “mob organizers” but it’s the same thing, there’s a whole group of people given walking-around money by the machine for the express purpose of making sure there’s a heavy public turn-out whenever there’s a need for the appearance of a heavy public turnout. I suspect a good number of those “anti-Trump” protestors had no idea if they were protesting Trump or Chik-fil-A or the infield fly rule. Somebody showed up with a bus handing out free pizza coupons and packs of cigarettes and they hopped on the bus because it’s their job. Trump should know the Chicago Way is very similar to the New York Way but there are some differences and he ain’t the home team in Chicago. What kind of smart guy agrees to play ball on somebody else’s field but doesn’t bother learning the home field rules? What the hell did you think was going to happen taking your show into Obamaville?

    (But it is kinda funny to hear Donald Trump whining about free speech. “Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people.”)

  22. Listen, I like free speech, but we can’t just go around supporting Trump in a crowded movie theater. Someone might feel antsy.

  23. The first thing that angered me about this was it made me defend Trump and his supporters. The second and most important this was not some spontaneous event. This was seriously organized by a group with substantial funding. This is the scary part. The fact people are celebrating this is disturbing. It is like Nixon in Birkenstock’s(yeah you thought I was going Brownshirt.) If these people do this without government power imagine what a Sander’s/Clinton admin would do with the IRS, FBI, NSA and Secret Service. Oh wait we have already seen that only now it will be ten times worse.

  24. The people I am most worried about right now are the Trump supporters who could very well go absolutely apeshit if they don’t get their way. The are being driven into a near-religious frenzy at Trump rallies. If you are opposed to Trump and go to one of his rallies in protest, you’d be lucky to escape with your life at this point. And if his supporters perceive that the election is somehow being “stolen” from them, I’m convinced that many of them would take up arms and start blowing thing up.

    I find Trump utterly loathsome, but if he was elected President, I wouldn’t leave the country. I would be tremendously disappointed, but I would stay calm and see how well he works with Congress. I can accept defeat gracefully. Trump’s supporters, I fear, WILL NOT.

    1. I hope those enraged religion-frenzied Trump supporters know where you live.Personally I counsel restraint, wait till after the election to unleash Hell and make examples.

    2. If you are opposed to Trump and go to one of his rallies in protest, you’d be lucky to escape with your life at this point

      Psshaw. Would you rather be surrounded by Trump supporters or Black Lives Matter types? The later are more likely to have police records.

  25. The liberal freedom of speech doctrine is the cornerstone of democracy in the United States. So much for that precious idea.

    1. I hope Trump really does get his Fash on and tells his supporters to rip them up. I’m getting pretty sick of people who hide behind their “riiiiiights!” to undermine the society that guarantees them. A few deserving skulls getting crushed sans due process aren’t going to make me lose any sleep.

  26. Nick said: “Shut it down! How cool is that? It’s just like a college campus…”

    This did take place on a college campus. The venue was the University of Illinois at Chicago Pavillion, which may have something to do with the intensity of the protest.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/03…..ump-rally/

    1. I think Trump’s choice of venue is intentional.

  27. Look at Hihn, everybody!

    He knows how to use bold tags!

    Pay attention to ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!

    1. But does he know italics? And Bold italics?

  28. “Violence at these events, which may start organically, is in effect spot lit and encouraged to the point where it becomes something that is legitimately out of control of anyone,” she explained. “And then the spectacle of political violence is itself seen as something that is a problem that needs to be solved by this strongman character who incited the initial event in the first place.”

    Smart. Minorities use it. Feminists use it. Trump/”angry white men” use(s) it. (online abuse as truth-maker/privilege)

  29. I see where some wit suggested that Trump starts calling his rallies “Job Fairs”, ensuring the protestors never show up.

    1. Yuck-yuck.

  30. A joe, HIHHHHHNNNNNN, and Trumpet thread. Well. You all enjoy each other.

  31. Fascist blowhard threatening to sue people for peaceful protesting in addition to cajoling his minions to literally physically assault them… Let’s talk about why liberals hate free speech.

    Never Change Nick. No strike that, change soon, if possible. I’m sick of reading this horseshit. One thesis per article. It’s not like it’s that long.

    1. Tony|3.12.16 @ 9:36PM|#
      “I’m sick of reading this horseshit.”

      Not nearly as sick as we are of your lies.
      Fuck off and take Mike with you.

    2. The Heckler’s Veto is a strange thing to call “peaceful”.

      1. And notice how ‘liberals’ are now exempt from being called on their lies about supporting free speech, ’cause Trump!

    3. good job Tony. get in Nick’s face and punch back twice as hard.

  32. It wasn’t “free speech”. Trump paid for it.

  33. Well, I see our stroke victim is back. I really feel sorry for him. He was likely a respectable libertarian voice…prior to the clot.

    Too bad he now discredits the cause. Poor Mike.

    1. Can’t tell.
      If the message was always trumpeted (!) as ‘Mike Knows and You Don’t!”, and them the message was ‘You need to compromise with the Ds and the Rs!’, I think he was bypassed and left in the dust long ago.

  34. One lesson I think I’m supposed to learn here is that when Bernie Sanders supporters, MoveOn.org, Black Lives Matter, George Soros, the Tides Foundation, and assorted other groups band together to forcibly shut down a Trump rally, it proves how dangerous Trump is.

    1. What I don’t get is that none of the people in those organizations remembers ’68. Kerry is old enough. Soros is old enough.

      Are they going for a Trump win?

      1. Progressives should certainly know some history, because they keep telling everyone they are at the forefront of it, but they are blinded by their political fanaticism. Like many political fanatics, they have favorite solutions that they convince themselves work, and they keep doing them and doing them regardless of the results. “Protesting” is one of their favorite hammers, so they look for nails everywhere. Add in the virtue-signaling and self-congratulation, and they don’t see the situation from anything like an objective point of view.

        And I doubt if they will wise up. It’s too much in their nature to want mass protests that will inevitably turn violent. So there will be some really bad optics that will help Trump. Plus, the conservative media will connect the dots between the protests, individual protestors who do or say violent things, all the leftist organizations that fund them, and all the rich leftists who fund the organizations. The Democrats will still be whining about the Kochs and ALEC, but Trump will be pointing to Soros and Black Lives Matter and all the rest. Trump wins that particular battle.

  35. Apparently Roger Stone is claiming that Hillary Clinton and David Brock hired people to pretend to be Sanders supporters and disrupt the Trump rally….

  36. I can’t really respect an article that can’t even say “Trump was in the right” without insulting him numerous times.

  37. I’m one of those “89-90” % of readers who don’t comment. I don’t do so because it’s work, and I’d rather read the regulars, who are fine writers, and crack me up.

    Haven’t been around in a while. Who the fuck is this Hihn character? He’s really stinking up the place.

    Whining about unmoderated comments reveals him to be at best a whiny pantywaist.

    Who the Hell fears what unknown people call one on the internet?

    Call me a homo, call me a homophobe, racist, Nazi, pussy,
    baby girl, I don’t give a fuck.

    Rather enjoy it, to tell the truth.

    And I see this apparently unemployed, or under occupied – judging by his output – narcissist, cheering the disappearance of online comment sections.

    Maybe he should go to work for Merkel’s Facebook Stasi.

    Prick.

    And, for anyone who’s interested, a few keystrokes can find who I really am, so the “hiding behind internet anonymity” slur doesn’t work.

    1. I honestly think Mr. Hihn is seriously mentally ill. I had some fun teasing and mocking him the other day, but I have increasingly felt sorry for him, so I won’t be doing that any more. His inability to distinguish between simple disagreement, humor, and insult, and his extremely angry and incoherent responses both seem indicative of some sort of serious mental health issue, and I sincerely hope he has some family or friends to take care of him and get him some help. Be well Mike Hihn.

  38. Hihn also doesn’t know squat about Islam. He clearly has not read the Koran with understanding of the dichotomy between the Meccan and Medinan verses, the principle of naskh, that is abrogation, nor is aware of the consistent aggression in the hadith, nor is he familiar with the Sira, noted and canonical tafsir, as well as fiqh schools, all of which contradict the incoherent and fantastical nonsense he puts forth on a subject of which he clearly knows nothing.

    IOW, his shit’s all retarded and he talks like a fag.

    Woodchipper!

  39. Mr. Gillespie:
    I agree, Trump absolutely should act to rein in his people when there are demonstrators.

    But, just to be clear, when Trump rallyers went at people, those “protesters” who were not standing peacefully, maybe with a sign, to bear witness, they were actively disrupting the events, shouting down speakers and so on.

    So, yeah, Trump should tell his supporters to stay cool and let Security handle it, but you are slipping very close to a moral equivalence posture, seeing little difference between those who want to take away free speech, and those who want to exercise it.

    I have a lot of concerns about Trump, as do most of us, but after every other candidate blamed him for what happened in Chicago, I will be voting Trump on Tuesday (I live in Chicago). At least he hasn’t walked away fro freedom of speech like everyone else has.

    The people who organized that mob in Chicago will look at this huge success, not only shutting down an event but Trump being blamed for it, and now you will see a lot more of these mobs. That is the price for moral equivalence and not taking a stand for what is right, even if the vehicle is deeply flawed.

    It’s called “principles,” you and the rest might think about that.

  40. We have the right “peaceably to assemble”, but seeking to show down dissenters isn’t peaceful, and shouldn’t be treated as such. I don’t like Trump’s bullying tone and implicit incitements to violence, but if the liberal fascist Obamathugs are going to behave that way, they justify his and his supporters’ actions — and more.

  41. I appologise for being late to the thread….

    As for them being “pussies”: get your fucking story straight. Either Trump and his supporters are OMG DANGEROUS FASCISTS, or they’re pussies. It can’t be both.

    This. Trumpsters are in a tight spot. If the they take the leftist bait, they are going to be called out as violent thugs. If not, then it is just ammunition to show how Trumpsters are weak.

    IMHO, Trump did the right thing canceling the Chicago rally. I am sure there is a relevant Sun Tsu quote about picking the right time to do battle. Leftist are pushing their opponents into a corner. Assuming that leftists are unwilling to compromise, then their opponents will either have to submit or fight. For the Trumpsters, that time is after Trump has clenched the nomination.

  42. The idea of freedom of speech has been irrelevant for a long time. This is a fight for power, and neither side gives a damn about rules (like rights, equality, etc.), except to the limited degree they might be used to gain ground, before being discarded when they cease to provide an advantage any longer.

    1. Show me where the so called Right is shutting down opposing viewpoints. Show me where they are physically assaulting people.

  43. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  44. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  45. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  46. God, this thread is boring.

  47. Freedom only works when coupled to responsibility. There has been too much disavowal of responsibility lately.

    Whether the fellow behind “ShutitDown” is a real Sanders activist or not, Sanders hasn’t been encouraging intolerance and violence the way Trump has. So let’s have no false equivalences.

    I don’t support the tendency on campuses to try to shut out opposition speakers – but I also note that these speakers typically have easy access to many other public fora and many opportunities to speak out, while the protesters more often are relegated to the sidelines. Giving them a privileged podium on campus may seem less an act of championing free speech than an endorsement of the person or their views.

    1. That’s just authoritarian rationalizing of thuggery for its own benefit. The idea that a bunch of middle class college students represent people relegated to the sidelines is completely ridiculous. These are the future leaders and managers of America and they are only being taught (indoctrinated) the Marxist view of the world. They are being conditioned to have only a negativ, emotional response to ideas that counter what they are being told is reality in order to ensure that the future of America is one where all non-Marxist ideals are branded as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc… and thus marginalized and shut down. They are being brainwashed to be the Brown Shirts of American fascism.

  48. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??
    ? ? ? ? http://www.CashJoin60.com

  49. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  50. I would like Nick “the hippie pretending to be a libertarian” just what evidence he has that the “right” has its own version of political correctness and they have “rarely been slow to stifle voices with which it disagrees.” The fact that he uses the fallacious “left vs right” paradigm tells me he’s not really a libertarian and the things he says tells me he’s just an old hippie hater of Republicans and Christians and like his predecessor Virginia Postrel, stridently pro-abortion feminazi who gets all excited by the idea of the US being invaded by poor ignorant people who have no concept of freedom and only care about getting food in their bellies and thus become instant Democrat voters.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.